Disney will find a way to make a Marvel 5th gate

[Polydweller]

... and even if Universal did something wrong in the use of the characters, according to the contract they would have to be given the chance to correct it before the contract would be terminated.

True. But it has to be to Marvel's satisfaction and that's where I think it could get interesting.

I thought it was the other way around: All characters that US introduced at the contract's inception are theirs for the duration.

Only if Universal continuously uses them. They lose the right to any character once they stop using that character continualy. That's the second way to end the contract that I was trying to get at, Universal stops using all of them. Effectively no contract then. But they could drop one and keep the others they are currently using. They just couldn't use the drop character again.

 

[mbrittb00]

They really don't need to that 13-18 market. Also it takes boat loads of money (read multi million dollar trill rides, with new ones every year) to get that small market share. It may not be worth it.

As long the we don't have a shortage of Parents buying overpriced princess dresses and the like Disney will do OK.

Oh and I don't think this as been posted but there will most likely never be a 5th gate in Florida. No matter if its Marvel, Beastly Kingdom, Smurfs or all the other rumors. The market can't support it. Much bigger returns to do it overseas and use other people's money.

Your probably right, although at some point if they keep building resorts, they are going to need a place to put all those guests. The parks can only hold so many people.

Also, to correct a previous mistake of mine, TSMM opened in May of 2008. That is the latest attraction. So it's only been 4 years. Prior to that it was Monsters Inc Laugh Floor in 2007, EE in 2006 and Soarin in 2005. Once the Fantasyland construction is complete that will give us something new (and more time to spend) in the MK.

 

[Muslickz]

One thing Disney definitively needs to do is find a way to market their parks to the 13-18 crowd, especially boys. US IoA is killing them in that market. Unless I am missing something It has been 6 years (EE, 4/7/2006) since they opened a "new" attraction. maybe that means they are building up $$ to create a new park that will appeal more to the 13-18 crowd.

I think that would be a great idea really... I have to way I am very surprised they haven't done that already or have one in the works....

-M

 

[chartle]

Your probably right, although at some point if they keep building resorts, they are going to need a place to put all those guests. The parks can only hold so many people.

Not really, once they have gotten as many people to stay on versus off site by offering things like free dining they will just stop building them.

Just like they stopped building parks when they filled up an entire week's vacation.

A fifth park will only be built if and when they can add another day to the week or reverse this chart that I posted in another thread.

Frankly rearranging the time space continuum to add the extra day would be easier.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

One thing Disney definitively needs to do is find a way to market their parks to the 13-18 crowd, especially boys. US IoA is killing them in that market.

If I were Beethoven...i would respond to this by singing:
No,No,No,No
"No, No, No,NO....No, No, No, No....No, No, No, No
No, No,No,No

 

[tjkraz]

One thing Disney definitively needs to do is find a way to market their parks to the 13-18 crowd, especially boys.

It's a segment which is probably under-represented in the theme parks. However, the real question is how many 13-18 year olds have the power to dictate vacation habits for the rest of the family. And the answer is not many.

If mom and dad want to visit and bring along younger children, that 13-18 year old is stuck coming along, like it or not.

Locals in the 16-18 age range who can visit independently may prefer Universal to Disney. But their spending habits are probably not substantial enough for Disney to take notice.

...although at some point if they keep building resorts, they are going to need a place to put all those guests.

Not really, once they have gotten as many people to stay on versus off site by offering things like free dining they will just stop building them.

Exactly. There is no meaningful correlation between hotel construction and theme park attendance. Consumers do not make a buy/don't buy decision based upon the existence of additional hotel rooms.

Disney builds additional rooms because it wants to capture a greater percentage of the off-site hotel crowd. The new Animation Suites are designed to address a growing consumer demand for a certain type of accommodation--mini suites which can accommodate families of 5 or 6.

Theme park crowds aren't going to rise by 10% just because Disney increases its hotel inventory by 10%.

 

[mbrittb00]

It's a segment which is probably under-represented in the theme parks. However, the real question is how many 13-18 year olds have the power to dictate vacation habits for the rest of the family. And the answer is not many.

If mom and dad want to visit and bring along younger children, that 13-18 year old is stuck coming along, like it or not.

Locals in the 16-18 age range who can visit independently may prefer Universal to Disney. But their spending habits are probably not substantial enough for Disney to take notice.

Not exactly dictate, but definitively influence. On the trip we just got back from, we went one day to IoA. That is something we haven't done in several trips. However with a 13 year old, and a 2nd son that will be in the 11+ age range the next time we go, we have already discussed plans to spend 2 or 3 days at US and IoA, days that previously we would have spent at Disney.

Exactly. There is no meaningful correlation between hotel construction and theme park attendance. Consumers do not make a buy/don't buy decision based upon the existence of additional hotel rooms.

Disney builds additional rooms because it wants to capture a greater percentage of the off-site hotel crowd. The new Animation Suites are designed to address a growing consumer demand for a certain type of accommodation--mini suites which can accommodate families of 5 or 6.

Theme park crowds aren't going to rise by 10% just because Disney increases its hotel inventory by 10%.

True, the parks do hold more people than the on-site hotels can accommodate. I would assume that there is a relatively fixed ratio of park guest staying on-site to those staying offsite. A new perk for staying onsite (i.e. xPass) will effect that ratio. Park attendance has continued to increase year after year. I guess my logic was a bit backwards. In reality Disney is building more hotels because more people are attending the parks, and thus more people are staying onsite. The fact still is that park attendance is rising year after year, eventually they are going to need a place to put all those people.

As for the new Value Suites (including the AoM rooms), although they can accommodate 6 guests, I see them appealing more to the family of 4 who wants more room but doesn't want to pay $500+ per night for a Deluxe Suite or two Deluxe rooms. As a parent of a family of 6 they are still honestly just too small. At some point on a week+ long vacation there gets to be just too much togetherness, especially amongst the kids. With two kids in a single value room, it isn't that hard to split them up and separate them, especially if they are different genders. However with 3 and 4 kids even two value rooms (connecting) there just isn't enough space. It is this fact that has pushed us to stay offsite the last several trips. Being able to get 3x or 4x the space for 1/2 the price is a little hard to pass up. That all said, we will probably give AoM a shot (especially if we have to stay onsite to use the xPass pre-booking), but OKW (renting points from a member) is also an option for not much more.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

I think that perhaps the ten biggest fallacies when it comes to assessing the operation of WDW have all been committed on this thread...along with the complete debunkment by those that get it....

In this day and age...it is shocking that so much wishful thinking is still out there. In a way, its actually encouraging - the fact that people still believe that disney still wants to shock them by putting in more stuff for them to enjoy for the sake of their reputation - but those days have long since past.

But here's the deal: it's not hard to figure out what Disney is doing. It really isn't. All their moves are cold and calculating.

Now occasionally...something will happen that you didn't see coming. This Avatar thing is a prime example.

But...though we might be surprised as to what characters they bought...we all should know why they do it. To string along a stagnant park. 99% of their decisions since the opening of AK have been to do just that. Band aid the parks. Not just at WDW...worldwide.

Fantasyland is actually similar if you think about it: closed skyway...closed 20K...hadn't had anything really shaking things up there for 40 years. Toontown is even worse. So they build an elaborate setup to revitalize the area and generate more merch. Not as obvious as AK...but the same concept...string it along and generate sales.

The Marvel acquisition was obvious from day one - even if you didn't read any of the details that spelled it out plainly:
Merchandise revenue/ royalties
Movie revenue/ royalties (actually more likely DVDs...which are basically no overhead...movies and actors actually cost money)
Third party license/royalty fees

That's it...i'm not even going to get into the whole "once the hotels fill up...they'll need more parks" back and for (that's right in the wheelhouse...too easy)...or the "universal is hurting disney big time!" (that one is practically antimatter)

lets just stop this marvel train before it becomes a 10 year back and forth? there will be no spideypark. there will most likely be no X-ride. hulk will not smash in a stuntshow.

if you want to watch a movie and then ride the ride in florida...get ready for Pirates 5 or tinker bell 12

 

[MATTinNH]

I agree that Disney bought Marvel for numorous reasons , probably least of which was the idea of building a park. I'm not debating that, never have. All I am saying is that they might be changing their view, due to the possible realization that there may be bigger opertunities here than earlier expected. If they sell merch in proportion to ticket sales...similar to most big movie franchises...this has got to open their eyes is all..

 

[tjkraz]

It's possible they are changing their view. A $200 mil 3-day box office has a way of grabbing one's attention.

However, I tend to think there are a lot of options on the table ahead of sending that $200 mil to Comcast to buy-out the Universal FL theme park rights.

 

[chartle]

It's possible they are changing their view. A $200 mil 3-day box office has a way of grabbing one's attention.

However, I tend to think there are a lot of options on the table ahead of sending that $200 mil to Comcast to buy-out the Universal FL theme park rights.

There is also those little words. "It just doesn't work that way".

That money has to first pay all the costs associated with making and marketing the movie, some people also get percentages and they still have to recoup the costs for John Carter.

 

[tjkraz]

There is also those little words. "It just doesn't work that way".

That money has to first pay all the costs associated with making and marketing the movie, some people also get percentages and they still have to recoup the costs for John Carter.

Oh, I was never implying that Disney would simply redirect the Avengers film proceeds. My point was even if Disney is warming to the idea of Marvel in its parks, it would be more sensible to test a Marvel theme park presence elsewhere before they consider writing 9-figure checks to Universal to buy out FL rights (and single-handedly fund Transformers Land or WWoHP Phase 3.)

 

[chartle]

Oh, I was never implying that Disney would simply redirect the Avengers film proceeds. My point was even if Disney is warming to the idea of Marvel in its parks, it would be more sensible to test a Marvel theme park presence elsewhere before they consider writing 9-figure checks to Universal to buy out FL rights (and single-handedly fund Transformers Land or WWoHP Phase 3.)

The more I think about it, buying back the rights is kind of a lose lose lose for Disney and a win win for US.

Its lose lose lose for Disney because not only do they have buy back the rights $, they lose on licencing, more $ and then to make any money off of them they have to spend even more $.

Its win win for US since if they are going to sell them they must think they don't need them anymore so they get $ for something they don't wnat and another win because they can use that $ to build or rebuild and have a new park.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

It's possible they are changing their view. A $200 mil 3-day box office has a way of grabbing one's attention.

However, I tend to think there are a lot of options on the table ahead of sending that $200 mil to Comcast to buy-out the Universal FL theme park rights.

how about when the avengers hits the box office wall in exactly 9 days somewhere in the low 300's?

won't be quite so impressive...will it?

 

[MATTinNH]

WOW Lockedout...sounds more and more like youve taken this stance because you just dont like Marvel. That last comment sounded kinda like youre hoping it stops doing so well. What if it doesnt? what then? Sounds like youre hoping for any thing you can call a failure or falling short, just to stop the Marvel conversation. Truth is Marvel movies have and will continue to make big bucks for Disney.....anything with this type of money making potential attached to it has to, and obviously from Igers comments, is being looked at for more than what you are saying.

 

[ASteelersMidget]

WOW Lockedout...sounds more and more like youve taken this stance because you just dont like Marvel. That last comment sounded kinda like youre hoping it stops doing so well. What if it doesnt? what then? Sounds like youre hoping for any thing you can call a failure or falling short, just to stop the Marvel conversation. Truth is Marvel movies have and will continue to make big bucks for Disney.....anything with this type of money making potential attached to it has to, and obviously from Igers comments, is being looked at for more than what you are saying.

It's not that he hates marvel, It's that he is level-headed and see's things for what they are. As for the stall, I'm not surprised. Everyone who really wanted to see it saw it in the first week. So it's not that surprising.

Unfortunately this topic will never die.

Disney bought Marvel with no intention of bringing it to the parks. Even if they do it WON'T be at WDW

 

[tjkraz]

It's not that he hates marvel, It's that he is level-headed and see's things for what they are. As for the stall, I'm not surprised. Everyone who really wanted to see it saw it in the first week. So it's not that surprising.

Avengers' only competition the next two weekends are Dark Shadows and Battleship. Both have received mediocre reviews and Battleship has netted tepid earnings in its 4-5 weeks of international release.

Even conservative estimates have Avengers passing $350 mil domestic and $1 bil worldwide by Sunday or Monday. The only recent releases it may struggle to catch are Avatar ($2 bil) and Harry Potter 8 ($1.3 bil.) By next week it will have passed all the other Harry Potters, Dark Knight, all of the Transformers films, etc.

With Rotten Tomatoes of 93% and Cinemascore A+, I think Avengers is going to get a lot of repeat business and business from folks who don't normally frequent this genre.

But it's not like this debate will go on forever. We'll know in 2-3 weeks. And regardless of its final place in history, Avengers is already a certified blockbuster.

 

[fannatic]

I had an interesting e-mail exchange with Universal Studios Florida yesterday. That's all I'm allowed to say - seriously.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

Avengers' only competition the next two weekends are Dark Shadows and Battleship. Both have received mediocre reviews and Battleship has netted tepid earnings in its 4-5 weeks of international release.

Even conservative estimates have Avengers passing $350 mil domestic and $1 bil worldwide by Sunday or Monday. The only recent releases it may struggle to catch are Avatar ($2 bil) and Harry Potter 8 ($1.3 bil.) By next week it will have passed all the other Harry Potters, Dark Knight, all of the Transformers films, etc.

With Rotten Tomatoes of 93% and Cinemascore A+, I think Avengers is going to get a lot of repeat business and business from folks who don't normally frequent this genre.

But it's not like this debate will go on forever. We'll know in 2-3 weeks. And regardless of its final place in history, Avengers is already a certified blockbuster.

but what exactly does that mean?
the cost of movie tickets has risen by a multiplication factor over the last 20 years...so i'm not sure "blockbuster" even means anything.

I'll just run off the list of BAD movies that have made the kind of money that everyone is going hoopla over here

Star Wars: The JarJar Binks chronicals: 477 domestic
Shrek 2: 441
Pirates Dead Mans Chest: 423
Transformers: Revenge of the Bad Acting 403
Transformers: Dark of the Bad Acting 352
Shrek the Third: 322
Indiana Jones and the "George Lucas has obviously lost all thought like Reagan '87" 317
Pirates At Creativity's End 307


these are HORRENDOUS movies....even if you wash out the sequel factor and the cartoons...there were lots of ill advised tickets purchased for these stinkers.

So what am i saying?
Kids are stupid. And because they put up what seems like "huge" numbers for the time...that doesn't indicate development worthy theme park projects.

adjusted for inflation...these movies are a fraction of the influence of even the 80's level blockbusters...lets face it.

disney is gonna make a few bucks of the film....they will make more off toys and inevitable badly written sequels (that's not even close to being presumptuous or a stretch)...
but no protracted legal battle for the right to LOSE merchandising and royalty revenue...followed up by Joe Rhode going ape droppings and pushing a 200 million design and construction budget to a 1.8 billion dollar budget after 45 junkets to the amazon to study tarantulas up close for the Spiderman pin kiosk...

I hate to be the wet blanket....but we kinda need it. if anything - at least in the united states - that the people need more of...its daily reminder to make logical decisions based on the facts available.

i know...blasphemous in this age of unrealistic reality shows and political pundits who make everything up in story meetings.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

WOW Lockedout...sounds more and more like youve taken this stance because you just dont like Marvel. That last comment sounded kinda like youre hoping it stops doing so well. What if it doesnt? what then? Sounds like youre hoping for any thing you can call a failure or falling short, just to stop the Marvel conversation. Truth is Marvel movies have and will continue to make big bucks for Disney.....anything with this type of money making potential attached to it has to, and obviously from Igers comments, is being looked at for more than what you are saying.

wow...you meant well...but the train jackknifed out of the station

most of these blockbusters lose 85%+ of their opening gross by the time they hit the 17-21 day mark.

for every one that doesn't...dark knight....avatar...

there are 20 that do. so again, the term "blockbuster" is so misleading.
I like a good marvel flick as much as the next guy...but its still for 8 year boys and geekdom...
nothing wrong with that...but disney ain't building to host a ComicCon...

they leave their stuff in place for 20, 30, 40 years relatively untouched. that isn't what comic books character attractions are going to get them. they will become stale and boring...not what can be considered "classic" like small world, the haunted mansion, and pirates of the caribbean.

and you know why? because they aren't reserved for a specific niche demographic!!!

are we done yet? i mean...really.
marvel/avengers is ok...but its like transformers....lots of bells and whistles...not much staying power.

(and fyi...i grew up with comic books, marvel, transformers, and all of this stuff....couldn't get enough of it. But i GREW UP.
As much as it pains me to say it....this isn't the direction to go. and my disney experience tells me in no uncertain terms that this is not where they will go...its just the way it is)